Honestly, in the long run, FCS move-ups like Montana/Montana State are better options than will-never-amount to anything programs from the Sunbelt

For Montana, I agree. But I do see North Texas as a good candidate. New facilities, replaces the lost Dallas market that CUSA used to have 2 schools in. I also see potential with UTSA, simply because of experience in that market...those San Antonions could really support that program.

North Texas does NOTHING for the Dallas market - nowhere close to either SMU or TCUMontana State drew nearly as much as UNT - and are expanding the stadium

Buddy, I live and work in Dallas and let me tell you, UNT is a good get and carry this market...

Its not going to beat any current/future/former Big 12 Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas school, nor SMU, Arky, nor Nebraska but that's probably it. Tons of kids from DFW go to UNT and then move right back into DFW. UNT has a pretty sweet deal its in the same situation as SFA/SHSU are in East Texas and UTSA/Texas St are in Central Texas but its grown by leaps and bounds more comparable to Houston who gone from a commuter school to a tier 1 university that's joining the Big East.

Okay fine UNT doesn't draw a crowd, but they're in a situation where a majority of their students go home weekly and they play a crappy slate of games and have no local rivalries that mean anything (Ark St, ULL, ULM). If they start playing games against schools that most people have heard of/know people from like Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, and possibly LA Tech people in Dallas will take notice, like we did when they upgraded and beat up on the Sun Belt for a few years. People don't ignore schools like TCU/SMU, Houston/Rice, and Tech/Okie St because they will never compete (market wise) with UT, A&M, and OU; so why are you demeaning a school that is just a step below them? Texas is big and we watch a lot of sports, if UNT turns into TCU 2.0 then watch out.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.

Oh joy pods. I hope the meeting is at the Fresno airport this time when we break up.

At 20

PacFresnoUNLVNevadaSJSUHawaii*

MtWyomingColorado St.New MexicoAir ForceUTEP

CentTulsaRiceTulaneUNTUTSA

EastS.MissECUMarshallUABFIU

USU could replace AFA or Fresno when the BE picks 14. If they go to 24. USU(pac), La Tech(cent), Charlotte(east), Texas St.(Mt). If they want MTSU over Texas St. then UTSA could go Mt and MTSU cent. To me 20 is easy 24 is more of a pain. Plus at 20 you know that USU will eventually get an invite anyway when the BE goes to 14. I'm fine w/ the rest being left out. Pods still suck and will probably kill this in a few years. We'll see. What about other sports We'll have 19 or 23. Seems odd. I wish we'd let Hawaii in for everything and not make them pay for us to travel out there.

NMSU guy on the WAC board pointed out that to have a conf. title game the 2 div would have to play every member of that div. So at 20 4 pods of 5 that would be 9 conf. games and no cross overs. Thus the pod reasoning to get all the schools to play every few years. If they went to 24, they'd have to play 11 conf. games.

According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.

He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.

I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.

According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.

He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.

I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.

How does 22/24 work better if you have to play everyone in your div. meaning (pod a & b) and (pod c & d) have to play everyone in their "div" according to the NCAA. At 22, 11/11 that's 10 conf games. at 24 12/12 that's 11 conf. games. No way do I see that.

According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.

He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.

I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.

How does 22/24 work better if you have to play everyone in your div. meaning (pod a & b) and (pod c & d) have to play everyone in their "div" according to the NCAA. At 22, 11/11 that's 10 conf games. at 24 12/12 that's 11 conf. games. No way do I see that.

"Better"? My post was about UTEP and that the only way UTEP can go to the "MWC side" of a full merger, would be for Utah St. or SJSU to NOT be invited OR if they expanded beyond 10 each.

With CUSA/MWC visits to UTSA, mentions of Charlotte & App St., Utah St. and SJSU already being visited, North Texas and FIU being mentioned by other school admins, we're talking already 23 total schools in the mix: 16 plus those 7.

So regardless about the specs of you mention about 10 or 11 conference games, I'm thinking that CUSA/MWC have that taken care of at this point, over 2 months into the process, and wouldn't be expanding to 22 or 24 if that were going to be an obstacle.

According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.

He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.

I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.

How does 22/24 work better if you have to play everyone in your div. meaning (pod a & b) and (pod c & d) have to play everyone in their "div" according to the NCAA. At 22, 11/11 that's 10 conf games. at 24 12/12 that's 11 conf. games. No way do I see that.

"Better"? My post was about UTEP and that the only way UTEP can go to the "MWC side" of a full merger, would be for Utah St. or SJSU to NOT be invited OR if they expanded beyond 10 each.

With CUSA/MWC visits to UTSA, mentions of Charlotte & App St., Utah St. and SJSU already being visited, North Texas and FIU being mentioned by other school admins, we're talking already 23 total schools in the mix: 16 plus those 7.

So regardless about the specs of you mention about 10 or 11 conference games, I'm thinking that CUSA/MWC have that taken care of at this point, over 2 months into the process, and wouldn't be expanding to 22 or 24 if that were going to be an obstacle.

I'm concerned w/ how smart our leaders think they are. 2 AQ nonsense, semi finals. I'm not so sure they know about the must play everyone in the div. rule. If the NCAA doesn't change it the only way around it is to stay 2 separate leagues and have 2 conf title games w/ a bowl game between the 2 winners.

Just because a school gets mentioned doesn't mean they'll get in. See USU and SJSU last year. See UNA and NKU to the OVC last year. UTPA, UNO, ACU, UIW all mentioned for the SLC, none invited yet, doubt all will either. App St. got mentioned, I don't see how they get in.

According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.

He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.

I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.

How does 22/24 work better if you have to play everyone in your div. meaning (pod a & b) and (pod c & d) have to play everyone in their "div" according to the NCAA. At 22, 11/11 that's 10 conf games. at 24 12/12 that's 11 conf. games. No way do I see that.

"Better"? My post was about UTEP and that the only way UTEP can go to the "MWC side" of a full merger, would be for Utah St. or SJSU to NOT be invited OR if they expanded beyond 10 each.

With CUSA/MWC visits to UTSA, mentions of Charlotte & App St., Utah St. and SJSU already being visited, North Texas and FIU being mentioned by other school admins, we're talking already 23 total schools in the mix: 16 plus those 7.

So regardless about the specs of you mention about 10 or 11 conference games, I'm thinking that CUSA/MWC have that taken care of at this point, over 2 months into the process, and wouldn't be expanding to 22 or 24 if that were going to be an obstacle.

I'm concerned w/ how smart our leaders think they are. 2 AQ nonsense, semi finals. I'm not so sure they know about the must play everyone in the div. rule. If the NCAA doesn't change it the only way around it is to stay 2 separate leagues and have 2 conf title games w/ a bowl game between the 2 winners.

Just because a school gets mentioned doesn't mean they'll get in. See USU and SJSU last year. See UNA and NKU to the OVC last year. UTPA, UNO, ACU, UIW all mentioned for the SLC, none invited yet, doubt all will either. App St. got mentioned, I don't see how they get in.

One thing to consider is that what is in the public isn't always going to be exactly how things were discussed internally. For instance, from the start of the alliance talk, one of the things on the table has always been a "semi-final". And that could happen...if they adhere exactly as you are laying it out there regarding the divisional requirements.

Pretty straight forward once we get past all the muck stirred up with all the other variables in play to get the alliance to work:* They said 24 was an option* We've all snickered, thinking that is too many schools to handle, too big...10 more schools than the most "populated" BCS conference* But with a CUSA side at 6/6 in an alliance and a MWC side at 6/6 in the alliance, thats...yup, 24 total schools.* 6/6 pits 2 CUSA divisional winners in a conference championship, and 2 MWC winners in a MWC "conference" championship. * The winners essentially go back to the what, old Liberty Bowl setup? Wasn't that CUSA #1 vs MWC #1 (or was it WAC? Can't recall). New bowl likely wouldn't be Liberty level, it would likely have enough clout to bump up the list a bit. * Big negative is that it means the winner is out of the "BCS 3.0" setup for 2014.

And to get to 24, it means:CUSA adds 4 from the pool of No. Texas, FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St., UTSA, NMSU, etcMWC adds 4 from a similar pool with NMSU, UTSA, No. Texas if they can get UTEP to swap and have the alliance SPLIT the Texas state...and the other 2 spots to Utah St. and SJSU.

So really, you COULD get past the requirement of divisional play.

And it could even be done with some cooperation:CUSA adding FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St.MWC adding No. Texas, UTSA, Utah St. and SJSUCUSA "trading" UTEP to MWC for UTSA

According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.

He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.

I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.

How does 22/24 work better if you have to play everyone in your div. meaning (pod a & b) and (pod c & d) have to play everyone in their "div" according to the NCAA. At 22, 11/11 that's 10 conf games. at 24 12/12 that's 11 conf. games. No way do I see that.

"Better"? My post was about UTEP and that the only way UTEP can go to the "MWC side" of a full merger, would be for Utah St. or SJSU to NOT be invited OR if they expanded beyond 10 each.

With CUSA/MWC visits to UTSA, mentions of Charlotte & App St., Utah St. and SJSU already being visited, North Texas and FIU being mentioned by other school admins, we're talking already 23 total schools in the mix: 16 plus those 7.

So regardless about the specs of you mention about 10 or 11 conference games, I'm thinking that CUSA/MWC have that taken care of at this point, over 2 months into the process, and wouldn't be expanding to 22 or 24 if that were going to be an obstacle.

I'm concerned w/ how smart our leaders think they are. 2 AQ nonsense, semi finals. I'm not so sure they know about the must play everyone in the div. rule. If the NCAA doesn't change it the only way around it is to stay 2 separate leagues and have 2 conf title games w/ a bowl game between the 2 winners.

Just because a school gets mentioned doesn't mean they'll get in. See USU and SJSU last year. See UNA and NKU to the OVC last year. UTPA, UNO, ACU, UIW all mentioned for the SLC, none invited yet, doubt all will either. App St. got mentioned, I don't see how they get in.

One thing to consider is that what is in the public isn't always going to be exactly how things were discussed internally. For instance, from the start of the alliance talk, one of the things on the table has always been a "semi-final". And that could happen...if they adhere exactly as you are laying it out there regarding the divisional requirements.

Pretty straight forward once we get past all the muck stirred up with all the other variables in play to get the alliance to work:* They said 24 was an option* We've all snickered, thinking that is too many schools to handle, too big...10 more schools than the most "populated" BCS conference* But with a CUSA side at 6/6 in an alliance and a MWC side at 6/6 in the alliance, thats...yup, 24 total schools.* 6/6 pits 2 CUSA divisional winners in a conference championship, and 2 MWC winners in a MWC "conference" championship. * The winners essentially go back to the what, old Liberty Bowl setup? Wasn't that CUSA #1 vs MWC #1 (or was it WAC? Can't recall). New bowl likely wouldn't be Liberty level, it would likely have enough clout to bump up the list a bit. * Big negative is that it means the winner is out of the "BCS 3.0" setup for 2014.

And to get to 24, it means:CUSA adds 4 from the pool of No. Texas, FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St., UTSA, NMSU, etcMWC adds 4 from a similar pool with NMSU, UTSA, No. Texas if they can get UTEP to swap and have the alliance SPLIT the Texas state...and the other 2 spots to Utah St. and SJSU.

So really, you COULD get past the requirement of divisional play.

And it could even be done with some cooperation:CUSA adding FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St.MWC adding No. Texas, UTSA, Utah St. and SJSUCUSA "trading" UTEP to MWC for UTSA

So you're thinking they go w/ what I said is the only way you could pull off 24. Okay so how do they get a TV deal for all 24 as 1 if they stay 2, 12 team conf.? 2 TV deals? Would that make the per school deal weaker? What if 1 gets a bigger tv deal than the other? I'm guessing if 1 school gets a BCS bowl, they can opt out of the Liberty Bowl.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum